The Know Nothing Speaker

In 1855, President Franklin Pierce had managed to infuriate the public.  Not only did he sign the Kansas-Nebraska Act that led to Bleeding Kansas, he had also floated the idea of purchasing Cuba from Spain to allow the South to expand.  In fact, if Spain didn't sell, maybe the US should just seize it!  The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was officially dead.  The Whigs, who were not an abolitionist party, couldn't really take advantage of this situation.  Throughout the country, different parties opposed the Democrats.

In the election, the Democrats were clobbered.  Though they retained control of the Senate, they had lost 74 seats in the House, going from 156 representatives to 82.  It should be noted that there were only 234 seats at the time.  The American Party - also called the Know Nothing Party - captured 51 seats, which made it the second largest block.  A variety of other parties (the Constitutional Union Party, the nascent Republican Party, and the remaining Whigs in the process of reformation, anti-slavery Democrats, etc.) organized themselves as the Opposition Party and caucused with the Know Nothings.  With this jumbled multi-party majority - a first in American history, the problem of selecting a Speaker of the House arose.  

While it took 4 days and 15 votes in the House to confirm Kevin McCarthy as Speaker in 2023, that is nothing compared to 1855-56.  It took 2 months and 133 votes to select Nathaniel Banks as the Speaker of the House on February 2, 1856.  Though he had long been a Democrat - albeit from Massachusetts, the Kansas-Nebraska Act led him to leave the party and join the American Party.  He eventually became a Republican and fought for the Union during the Civil War.

The New 3/5ths Rule

Back in the 1780s when the Articles of Confederation were failing the newly independent United States, a constitutional convention was called.  The putative plan was merely to amend the Articles to deal with recent troubles.  Instead, a new constitution was composed.  One of the difficulties was that the southern states had sizable slave populations.  Slaves were property and thus, it was argued, shouldn't be counted in the population.  As representation in the House was going to be based on population, the South didn't like that plan.  Of course, the North didn't think slaves should get the same representation as citizens.  What to do?  The two sides agreed to the 3/5ths compromise.  Thus, a state with 50,000 citizens and 50,000 slaves would be allocated House seats as if the population was 80,000 people (100% of the citizens plus 60% of the slaves).  This compromise allowed the South to keep pace with the far more populace North for decades.  Though the 3/5ths rule is still written into the Constitution, the 13th Amendment - which abolished slavery - ended it.

Today, a new means of inflating representation in the House has been developed.  Though it would seem obvious that the purpose of the House of Representatives was to represent the interests of the citizens, such is not quite the case.  The huge influx of illegal aliens - or undocumented workers, if you prefer - has inflated some regions.  In 2018, it was estimated that 11 to 12 million "unauthorized immigrants" were in the United States.  That was about 3% of the population, or 14 seats in the House of Representatives.  Now, if this 3% was evenly spread across the US, the representation would be a wash.  But they are not evenly spread.  According to this 2019 story, most of them live in 20 metro areas.  By having a large illegal population, a state can gain a House seat or two.  Within the state, the balance of representatives will tilt toward the metro areas, disenfranchising the rural areas and smaller cities.  It should be noted that several million more illegals have immigrated into the US over the last 3 years.

Though there are financial costs to hosting illegal aliens, the political gains are clearly enough to have the majority of politicians turn a blind eye.  Illegal immigration is so unpopular with the citizenry that Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016 by campaigning on it.  He may win in 2024 by campaigning on it again!

Much as it was wrong to allocate representation to slave states through the 3/5ths rule, it is also wrong to grant sanctuary cities and states more representation because they flout US law.  Citizenship should have benefits.  If Dieter from Germany happens to be attending the University of Iowa, that does not mean that he should count toward Iowa's number of Representatives in the House.  Incentives matter and right now the incentive is to give more representation based on population rather than citizens; politicians are responding to those incentives by opening the borders.

Impeach Biden?

Does President Biden deserve to be impeached?  Yes.  Should Congress impeach him?  No.  With the current makeup of the House and Senate, an impeachment will go nowhere.  Looking at the case of Adam Schiff's censure, not a single Democrat voted in favor.  It was a partisan vote despite the undeniable fact that Schiff lied repeatedly and publicly about evidence of Russian collusion.  Though the House could muster the votes for impeachment, the Democrat-dominated Senate will not vote to convict.  Like both of Trump's impeachments, it will come to nothing other than a waste of time and money.

Instead, how about a censure?  Andrew Jackson was censured for defunding the Bank of the United States.  Censure Biden for weaponizing the Department of Justice, Ukraine kickbacks, failure to maintain the US border, or raising Hunter.  The possibilities are endless.  Of course, whatever is chosen, it will be a case of style over substance.  The president and the press will decry Congress for partisanship, but when the firestorm of words subside, nothing will change.  If anything, Biden will come out stronger.  Why?  It must be remembered that the media is overwhelmingly Democratic and/or left-leaning.  It is virtually impossible in that arena for Republicans to win a PR battle.

How about using the power of the purse to defund the FBI, CIA, DOJ, and the like?  Per the Constitution, all spending must originate in the House of Representatives.  Cut funding and hold the line.  I've been suggesting that course of action for more than a decade, but Congress has yet to do it.  This path would have substance.  Congress is detailed in Article 1 of the Constitution because the founders viewed it as the most important branch of government.  We the People are most reflected in the House of Representatives.  Take that seriously, Speaker McCarthy.

Republicans with a Spine?

Kevin McCarthy has now failed to secure the speakership after 6 votes.  It is time to step aside and let someone else be speaker.  Of course, he's not going to do that.  He may yet arrange for Democrat votes to push him over the needed votes.  Imagine what sort of concessions that will require.  If he was truly interested in the good of the party, he would negotiate for another role and give up the speakership.  Really, the last Congress already settled the budget until September and the divided government means that anything the Republican House does will just be canceled by the Democrat Senate.  If ever there was a time for this sort of intraparty fight, now is it.  Once it's resolved, they won't get anything done anyway.  It's gridlock until January 2025, at minimum.

The great thing about the handful who have taken the fight this far is that they have been shown to possess something very rare among elected Republicans: a spine.  Yes, if McCarthy is finally elected, which he probably will be, he is going to be vindictive to these insurgents.  They know that, and still they protest.  Now, if only the rest of the Republicans could muster such sangfroid.

McCarthy Unqualified

The newly elected members of the House of Representatives met today to elect a Speaker.  The expectation was that Kevin McCarthy, the House Minority Leader, would be elected Speaker.  On the first vote - the one that has determined the Speaker for the past century, McCarthy failed to win a majority; he needed 218 votes but received 203.  In fact, the plurality of votes (212) went to a Democrat.  On the second ballot, McCarthy again failed to win the majority.  On the third ballot, McCarthy's vote total dropped to 202.

The Freedom Caucus telegraphed this move, allowing McCarthy the opportunity to politic in advance of the vote.  Either he failed to politic - which demonstrates that he is unqualified - or he failed to win the votes to avoid this embarrassment - which also demonstrates that he is unqualified.

Prior to the second vote, Matt Gaetz called upon the Republicans to vote for Jim Jordan.  On the first ballot, the votes for speaker were divided among 1 Democrat and 6 Republicans.  On the 2nd and 3rd ballots, the votes were divided among 1 Democrat (212), Kevin McCarthy (203/202), and Jim Jordan (20/19).  Unable to elect a Speaker, the House adjourned until tomorrow.

How will this impasse be overcome?  McCarthy could request votes from Democrats to make up his deficit, but that will involve some serious concessions that would destroy his speakership from the start.  He could offer concessions to the Freedom Caucus - which has a much stronger position that it had yesterday - to win enough votes.  However, that again leaves him as a weak Speaker.  He could step aside.  Even if he does this, Jordan will not be elected Speaker.  Jordan has shown hostility to the uniparty that has driven the debt to astronomical levels, ignored the open border, and shoveled billions of dollars to Ukraine.

Fresh of their 'victory' in the 2022 election, the Republican Party is imploding before it can even exercise power.  Time for popcorn!

Unrepresentative Liz Cheney

Liz Cheney (R - Wyoming) lost her primary yesterday and will be leaving Congress at the end of her term.  This comes as no surprise.  Wyoming is a very Republican state.  In 2016, the year she was elected to the House of Representatives, Donald Trump garnered 68% of the votes.  Hillary Clinton received 22% of the votes.  Liz Cheney won her seat with 62% while her Democrat opponent had 30%.

In 2018, Cheney won re-election with 64% vs. 30%, a modest increase in her support.

In 2020, she had her best showing yet, 69% vs. 25%.  However, Donald Trump had 70% support from Wyoming.  As a percentage of voters, this was the strongest support for Trump in the nation.  West Virginia was second at 69%, which might explain Joe Manchin's maverick status in the Senate.

Considering the voting of the citizens she represents, did joining the January 6th Hearings to attack Trump and those who support him look like a good idea?  Was she representing her state by providing 'bipartisan' membership on this one-sided committee?  Yesterday, her constituents gave her their opinion.  She was trounced, 66% to 29%.

In her concession speech, she likened herself to Abraham Lincoln.  Lincoln lost elections to the House and the Senate but was eventually elected president.  Wishful thinking.  Like it or not, Donald Trump was the most popular president among the Republican electorate since Reagan.  Her elective political career is over.  Her best opportunity to stay in politics is to become a pundit (e.g., Joe Scarborough) or get someone to appoint her to the bureaucracy.  She has torpedoed her chances of appointment by a Republican in the near term, so her best bet is punditry.

Rush to Impeachment

Do the Democrats know how this works?  The House plays prosecutor and the Senate plays judge and jury.  The prosecutor is supposed to investigate all the fact before the case is ever brought to court.  What prosecutor would schedule a court date and arrived to announce that the case needed more evidence?  The vote to impeach in the House was supposed to be the completion of the investigation.  By voting to impeach, the House declared that sufficient evidence and testimony had been uncovered to merit the removal of the president.  However, now in the Senate, there are calls to examine witnesses who did not appear in the House.  That would be a continuation of the investigation rather than a trying of the case.  Why didn't the House simply investigate longer?  The entire foundation of the obstruction of Congress charge is based on the House not pursuing remedies in the courts.  The President can't have executive privilege during impeachment hearings?  If so, executive privilege would always be nixed by the House declaring all hearings to be for impeachment.

 

The House had hearings and heard testimony.  That is what should be presented and nothing else.  That is the case they voted out of the House.  If it isn't enough, tough.  Be more thorough next time, which may very well happen before the election.  Trump may be the first president with multiple impeachments.

Never Gonna Let You Go

Calexit is again in the news as signatures are gathered.  The politics of Trump aside, California has an excellent case - purely on size - for becoming an independent country.   In 1870, the United States had a population of 38.8 million people who were represented in Congress by 241 Representatives and 72 Senators.  Today, California has a population of 39.3 million who are represented in Congress by 53 Representatives and 2 Senators.  The federal aristocracy put a cap on the number of people who could be in the ruling class and this gets worse every year.  A mere 535 people in Washington cannot possible represent the disparate interests of 320,000,000 citizens.  If the central government kept to its Constitutional role, perhaps it could but it has breached those bounds.  One cannot reconcile the sharply contrasting views of New York and Texas or California and Oklahoma.  Federalism or secession.

 

Though the state is dominated by Democrats, the Democratic Party cannot allow California to secede.  20% of all the Democratic Congressmen are from California.  Right now, the Republicans hold the House by a 240 to 194 margin.  Take out California and that becomes 226 to 155.  Without California, Trump won the popular vote by 1.4 million rather than losing it by 2.9 million.  The Democrats cannot afford to lose the state and will necessarily take action to prevent Calexit.  As such, the Republicans should grease the skids for Calexit and enjoy the ensuing civil war between California Secessionist Democrats vs. National Unionist Democrats.

Now Everyone is Qualified

Thanks to Trump's election, everyone thinks they are qualified to get elected to high office.  Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson is pondering a political career.  Oprah suddenly views herself as qualified for political office.  Kid Rock is floating the idea of running for Senate.  Caitlyn Jenner has even hinted at running for office.  When one considers the $20 trillion debt, the eternally collapsing infrastructure that somehow has no 'shovel-ready' jobs, the selective law enforcement, and myriad failures of government, it is clear that these highbrow educations aren't all they are cracked up to be.  As I noted in an earlier posting, we have a lot of Ivy Leaguers for Presidents and Senators.  We are closer to Buckley's less desirable composition:

I would rather be governed by the first two thousand people in the Boston telephone directory than by the two thousand people on the faculty of Harvard University.

William F. Buckley

 

Of course, Buckley was a Yale man so perhaps he was exposing a bias.  Still, the results of the Washington elites speak for themselves.  If there was a 100% sweep, it would do the government good, especially if the new Senators and Representatives were people who would have been unthinkable before Trump.  It is time to usurp the new aristocracy that has presumed the right to rule and return to government of the people, by the people, for the people.

 

Good luck storming the castle!

The Easy Button

Effective as of Dec. 31, 2017, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.

Affordable Care Repeal Act as written by Congressman Mo Brooks

That was easy.  Let's clear the wreckage that is Obamacare and rebuild rather than trying to refurbish the ruins that will still be a rickety structure prone to failure and requiring constant maintenance.  Tear it down and start clean.  Better still, tear it down and see what the private sector builds in its place, especially after some additional regulations are repealed.

 

The complicated and ambiguous nature of legislation provides plenty of work for lawyers, bureaucrats, and judges while burdening the producers of society.  As noted in a previous blog, a majority of US Senators are Doctors of Law but only 4 are Medical Doctors.  Are these lawyers particularly suited to designing a health care system?  I doubt the House has much better qualifications.  Would we entrust the Congress to design a system for computers and software and expect the costs to go down?

Unexpected Danger

Here is something to ponder though it is amazingly unlikely.  What if no one reached 270 electoral votes (or a majority of the popular vote) and the election was therefore thrown to the House of Representatives?  After the inconclusive election, there is no mechanism for replacing a candidate who dies.  If one of those candidates were to die (heart attack, assassination, etc.), the House would not be allowed to choose the VP nominee instead.  Thus, assassination in the wake of an inconclusive election could be extremely effective in picking the president.

 

This problem becomes ever more likely as there is the move toward proportional electoral votes.  In the winner-take-all system that has existed, a third party candidate rarely gets any electoral votes.  Ross Perot got nearly 20% of the popular vote in 1992 but earned 0 electoral votes.  Under a proportional system, Clinton's electoral landslide (370 to 168) would have instead been decided in the House of Representatives.  Also under such a system, Dole would have won in 1996.  That is a discussion for a different post.

 

It is extremely unlikely that a candidate will die in the narrow space between the election (early November) and the convening of the new Congress (early January).  Nonetheless, with the two lead candidates nearly 70 years old, it would not be a bad idea to be prepared.  Both parties could get on board prior to the danger but if one or the other happened to die in December, the other party might block any efforts to assure their candidate wins in January.

 

 

Boehner Resigns at Last!

John Boehner, Republican Speaker of the House, has announced that he is resigning.  He will remain in position for 1 month, long enough to cave in to Obama's budget demands on Planned Parenthood.  Yes, with nothing to lose, Boehner is almost certainly going to leave office in much the same way he served, spinelessly.

 

When Boehner first became Speaker in 2010, I was optimistic that the Republicans might push back against the leftism of the president.  Time and again, he demonstrated an unwillingness to fight for Republican principles, or any principles.  Now and again, he would talk a good game but he never enacted it.  No, for four years, all I heard from him was that he could not stop the president's agenda unless Republicans won the Senate.  Then came the 2014 election in which the Republicans crushed the Democrats, acquiring the Senate.  Finally, the Republicans will stand against the leftism of the president.  No, instead they passed a budget that would constrain the Power of the Purse for the incoming majority.  They didn't want to risk a shutdown so soon after such landslide election.  Um, why do you think the voters chose you, the opposition party, if not to oppose?

 

When the Republicans won their sweeping victory in the 2014 election, I was sadly correct in my prediction of the difference it would make: none.  The Republicans have failed their voters to such a degree that the voters will follow anyone who seems to have a spine.  Donald Trump has a spine.  Four years of Boehner's feckless leadership has brought the Republican party to this sad state.  Boehner has secured for himself a failed Speakership, an example of what not to do for future Speakers.

 

The current expectation is for the Majority Leader, Kevin McCarthy, to be the next speaker.  If he is, the Republicans will demonstrate that they haven't learned their lesson.  Why have one milquetoast resign to be replaced by another.  That may be unfair to McCarthy but I had no idea who he was until today.  That he has been the majority leader for this disaster of a Congress is not a good sign.

Now if only Mitch McConnell would resign from the Senate...

Impeachment Folly

Again there are calls to impeach the president and I can only shake my head.  Short of Obama gunning down a citizen on camera (who is not a Republican), the Democratically-controlled Senate will not convict.  Therefore, impeachment can only end in failure.  Might the process moderate President Obama's lawlessness?  Doubtful.  No, it will most likely just irritate the voters and boost Democrat turnout.  It is a terrible idea with no path to success.

Does Obama merit impeachment?  Certainly.  It may be recalled that I considered bailing out the car companies as impeachable and no one even considers that today.  He has rewritten immigration law, enforcing the Dreamer Law that Congress declined to pass.  He has rewritten the Affordable Care Act, also without Congressional involvement.  He went to war in Lybia without Congressional authorization; Bush got authorization for both Afghanistan and Iraq.  But, as with criminal courts, the District Attorney should not take a case to trial that it is certain he will lose.  It is a waste of time and money.

What of this lawsuit that the Speaker of the House is pushing?  It is only necessary because the Republicans have proven again and again to be spineless.  The House has the power of the purse.  Nothing can be funded unless a majority of the House votes for it.  Once the Republicans took the House, Obamacare was dead.  Well, it was dead if they had spines.  No, they folded again and again.  The Republicans voted to fund Obamacare because they couldn't make the case that the Democratic Senate was shutting down the government.  Having surrendered the power of the purse, the House Republicans are now going to beg the courts to force the president to enforce the laws that the Congress did pass, not the ones he wished had passed.  Weakness.

Spinelessness

It is a little known fact, sad to say, that Congress - specifically the House of Representatives - initiates all spending bills.  The President and the Senate can suggest to their hearts' content but it is the House that gets first crack on all spending priorities.  As such, the House has as much, if not more power, than the President to choke off or expand spending.  The Republicans have controlled the House since January of 2011 and yet the spending is still wildly out of control.  How can that be?  Spinelessness.  The Republicans have passed budgets (as required by the Constitution) only to have the Senate refuse to pass a budget.  Thus, the continuing resolution is passed to maintain current spending in all things.  This means that the Republican House has been extending the Democrat budget of 2009 for the past two years and the foreseeable future.  Why?  Spinelessness.  Sure, in the wake of the 2010 shellacking, the Republicans may have thought it wise to bide their time for a Republican President in 2013 to address the looming debt crisis.  Well, that didn't pan out.  It is time to force a new budget with new priorities to be passed.  The Republicans have the House for the next two years and it is always best to do anything unpopular in the odd years (i.e. those where there isn't an election).  So, as I suggested in 2010, the Republicans need to choke off the spending, shutting down the government for as long as it takes to prevent the painfully obvious fiscal collapse that is even now visible on the horizon.  But they won't!  Why?  Spinelessness!  No, they will raise taxes just like George HW Bush did.  They will do this in exchange for 'promised' cuts that will NEVER materialize.  It happens again and again and yet they NEVER learn.  If we don't go off the fiscal cliff with the New Year, it will almost certainly be because the Republicans caved so tremendously that the President couldn't refuse and a clear sign of spinelessness.